1. Update on the status of RBMP reporting
WISE Working Group D, DG Env Brussels
13/
Mette Wolstrup, Atkins Danmark a/s

2. RBDs and sub units
Download of submitted RBD subunits spatial data from cdr /eionet webpage
Import of data to geodatabase and compilation of one layer
Testing for boundary inconsistencies (gaps/overlaps)
Adding new attribute information from WFD master database

3. State of RBDSUCA submissionMS
Completed reporting
RBDSUCA
RBD spatial AT ** ES MT BE FI NL BG FR PL CY HU PT CZ IE RO DE * IT SE DK LT SI EE LU SK EL LV UK NO
NOTES: Status: 12/10/2010
The reporting status columns reflect if largely complete (green), partial (yellow) or no reporting (red) has been done.
The RBDSUCA column refers to whether the XML schema has been submitted
The RBD spatial column refers to whether spatial data has been submitted for RBDs
* No updates made to previous spatial submission
** RBD spatial data submitted at RBD level, not national

4. Spatial submissions Data submitted by: AT, BG, CZ,DE, EL, ES,
GR, FI, FR, HU, IE, LV,
NL, NO, PL, RO, SK, UK
No data submitted by:
BE, CY, DK, EE,
IT, LT, LU, MT, PT

5. Compilation of spatial layer
Data was merged
into one layer and
checked for
boundary
inconsistencies.

6. Quality assessment
Data imported into a geodatabase and merged to one layer
Check for boundary inconsistencies by building new topology.
Comments:
Boundary inconsistencies are
evident between all countries
National inconsistencies were found
within FR, UK and RO
There are overlaps and gaps between all national boundaries ranging from 1cm to > 100 meters. This indicates that at least one of two neighbouring countries does not snap to ERM or the use of a too high cluster tolerance – depending on method.

7. Next steps
Adding of European level attribute information (e.g. for joining as international RBDs)
Release of updated layer as reference dataset this year
Call for remaining countries to supply RBDSUCA xml and spatial information otherwise previous submission will be used